181. However, there is no jurisdictional mechanism that authorizes the Court to review its own decisions because the party disagrees with them. 182. Such a mechanism, which would be that of an ordinary appeal, was not provided for in the Rules of Procedure of this Court. 183. And this is evident from the Protocol on the Court of Justice, which provided in its article 19 that: “The decisions of this Court (…), are, subject to the provisions of this protocol relating to the revision, immediately enforceable and not subject to appeal”, meaning that they are final and binding. 184. Therefore, in the instant case, in addition to the disagreement manifested by the Applicants with regards to the analysis and conclusions reached by the Court in the rendered Judgment, it was concluded that the Applicants do not invoke any new fact that could serve as grounds for their application for Revision, under articles 25 of Protocol A/P.1/7/91 and 92 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 185. Thus, the Court concludes that the Applicants' claim is unfounded; therefore, it must be deemed inadmissible. X - THE COSTS: 186. The Respondent seeks for the Applicants to be condemned to bear the costs. The Applicants did not make comments in this regard. 187. As stated in article 66 of the Rules of Court, “a decision as to costs shall be given in the final judgment or in the order, which closes the proceedings." (1). The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. (2)” 188. Given the circumstances of the case, under article 66, the Court considers that each of the parties should bear its own costs. 35